4 ms·

You would think the UK government would help him out here, given what he did for us.

tptacek 9y ago
You think the UK government would intervene to stop the trial of someone accused of operating a conspiracy to spread banking trojans? Why?
- hacker_9 9y ago
  Because he's not just a 'someone', he's a hero for stopping the disgusting attack on the NHS and letting doctors and nurses get on with their job of saving lives.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. It's not how justice works. You can't do one useful thing to excuse a series of grave crimes.
    - hacker_9 9y ago
      Ok, so where is the arrests and trials for the people from the NSA, who designed the exploit that was stolen and became a key part of the WannaCry virus? The very same exploit that was used in a bunch of other viruses too, which has stolen tens of thousands of dollars to date?
    - shubb 9y ago
      Occasionally it does in the UK. A man who was videoed appealingly for calm during the London riots was let off I believe an assault charge. The magistrate told him something like 'we're even now '. However this was mitigation at sentencing following a trial.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      I know this probably isn't what you meant, but it's actually often the case that doing useful things helps people get over the other things you did, see Francis Drake, any number of founders of post-colonial and early 20th century countries, conquistadors/founding fathers/revolutionaries, etc. In short, justice is what most other influential people deem just, not some universal measure of conduct. Those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden never stood trial, because the victims belonged to the losing side. The "scientists" of Unit 731 never stood trial.[1] Only 13 out of 24 directors of IG Farben were found guilty and all were released early.[2] The church effectively killed hundreds of thousands (very conservative guess) by telling people not to use condoms. No one was tried. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunit... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial
  - user5994461 9y ago
    And he was so effective at stopping the malware because he is himself a malware creator distributing competing malware.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Which we will find out if he gets a fair trial, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skip the trial because he helped the NHS.
        vkou 9y ago
        No, he should skip the trial because of the chilling effect prosecuting a security researcher who allegedly wrote a banking trojan would have on legitimate security researchers.
        tptacek 9y ago
        What chilling effect would that be? I'm a security researcher, many of my friends are security researchers, none of us sell banking trojans (or write them; they're extremely boring as computer science projects) and none of us have changed what we're working on even a little bit as a result of this case. Frankly, this sounds a lot like what people said during the advent of the Hans Reiser trial. Believe it or not, "security researchers" are just as capable of committing crimes as everyone else is.
        tylersmith 9y ago
        The trial is necessary before you can deem him a legitimate security researcher and trojan authors should feel a chilling effect.
        cortesoft 9y ago
        What? So if I am a security researcher, I am allowed to write and sell as much malware as I want, with no consequences? That is absurd.
  - corford 9y ago
    Hero is a bit strong. He rashly decided to register a domain name without knowing how the malware would respond to that. By luck it de-activated itself when the domain became active. The malware could just as easily have decided to encrypt the victim's hdd and destroy the key.
- brudgers 9y ago
  In the US prosecutorial system, conspiracy charges are regularly used as a tool to leverage and encourage plea negotiations because conspiracy is so broad and allows for broad interpretations of seemingly innocuous actions and trifling intents. As I've said elsewhere, this smells more like an intelligence operation than a criminal investigation. Reading through the indictment [1], the conspiracy charge does not allege anything that isn't in the other charges. For the most part, the other charges allege "knowledge" that the software can be used for some purpose rather than actual use. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/986606/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/986606/downlo...
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I'm using "conspiracy" in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense. Obviously, he's charged with more than simply being a member of a conspiracy. I don't know what you think the prosecution of an actual banking trojan operation would look like and so can't evaluate the implication of something seeming "more like an intelligence operation than a criminal operation". Maybe you could clarify. This isn't the first malware conspiracy case the DOJ has gone after.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      From the bail hearing: Prosecutors told a Las Vegas court on Friday that Mr Hutchins had been caught in a sting operation when undercover officers bought the code. They claimed the software was sold for $2,000 in digital currency in June 2015. [1] So he was caught in a sting involving beer money at age 21. As the parent of a young man who recently managed to puncture a hole in the gas tank of a Buick without a clear explanation, my general take is that like many if not most young men, Hutchins has done one or more stupid things prior to the full onset of adulthood (not to suggest that the full onset of adulthood is necessarily entirely effective). Hutchins could have been arrested any time between June of 2015 and August of 2017. This includes: 1. Arrest in the UK. However, this would have required extradition and the expenditure of diplomatic capital given the relatively insubstantial ill gotten gains Hutchins is alleged to have received. The quid pro quo for $2000 in potentially illicit sales would expose a lot of very average people for a lot of very trifling offenses on both sides of the Atlantic. 2. Arrest when Hutchins first entered the US in association with Defcon. He could have been picked up at the airport upon arrival. Arrest in the US at the first opportunity seems the ordinary first alternative to extradition. 3. Arrest while Defcon was going on. Prosecutors argued at the bail hearing the Hutchins was a flight risk. Yet he was allowed to get all the way to the gate for his flight before he was detained. Ok, extradition is a mess. But picking him up earliest opportunity is pretty standard. Waiting until he is about to board a flight suggests either ineptitude or surveillance or the grand jury passing down an indictment during Defcon. I don't really buy ineptitude due to it requiring multiple Federal agencies falling down in routine police work. In a surveillance scenario, publicly arresting Hutchins puts any and all other targets of surveillance on notice. Without other arrests, that seems rather inept policing. Late execution of the warrant suggests a high level agenda to prevent him from being arrested (or questioned) in the UK or detained at the port of entry in the normal manner. Another possibility is the grand jury did not issue a indictment until just prior to Hutchins arrest. This points to a high level agenda as well since presenting evidence to the grand jury between the time Hutchins arrived and attempted to depart would involve significant logistical effort...on a two year old sting operation. To the degree that Hutchins is an attractive intelligence asset, a high level agenda is not implausible. Digging up a skeleton from his closet is not extraordinary spycraft. Letting him get to the airport before the arrest catches him at his most vulnerable and the transition from vacationing Los Vegas luxury to a concrete and stainless Clarke County jail cell is not going to strengthen most people's will. Of course, I am just speculating. But the fundamental premise is that the people of the state level intelligence communities tend to be professionals and good at what they do. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40833951 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40833951
- syshum 9y ago
  Because he is a UK citizen, and the US Legal system corrupt, twisted and self aggrandizing.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    I'd say the UK legal system (well, the legislation) isn't in great condition either. Currently you can be imprisoned for possessing certain pornographic drawings of fictional characters in England, Wales and NI. The Republic of Ireland has similar silly laws, such as how one can be convicted of possessing child pornography if the actors/acresses in the pornography are made to look as though they are underage (e.g through roleplaying or makeup).
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  Because that indictment was bare-bones and bullshit. I may be wrong here (and part of me hopes that I am), but this entire thing smells like the US flexing its power. Marcus gets picked up by the Feds, disappears without anybody knowing where he is for several days, and then suddenly we get an indictment with almost nothing in it claiming he wrote and sold Khronos based on some IRC logs? That just smells fishy to me.
zwerdlds 9y ago
The question of whether he is guilty of this particular crime is what this particular trial is about. Concessions regarding past behavior are usually saved for the sentencing portion of the trial.
balls187 9y ago
I would guess the UK government is going to work with US officials to ensure he has a fair trial. Not everyone in the US gets that luxury, but given the strong relationship between our two nations, I feel reasonably confident that Mr. Hutchins will receive as fair of a trial as anyone.
brudgers 9y ago
It would not surprise me if the UK government was using the US justice system as a tool to align Mr. Hutchins' interests more closely with those of its security and intelligence organs. To me, the story has unfolded smelling of a human asset acquisition operation. The Anglo-US intelligence communities have a young talented individual on a spit over a slow fire. Odds are, he will be easy to turn. The UK isn't expending political capital on extracting him from his predicament. That doesn't mean that its functionaries don't care. It suggests that what they care about is providing Hutchins with future opportunities to serve the state.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Or, maybe the guy was just involved, perhaps peripherally and by accident or perhaps directly and culpably, in a banking trojan scheme.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    Supposing that everything in the indictment is in fact true, the amounts of money involved relative to the bank robbery industry suggest that Hutchins is not a big time criminal in proportion to the publicity surrounding the case. The upside of going after Hutchins has to be worth the political cost of arresting someone considered a hero by many. And his abandonment by the UK government has to be worth it as well. The indictment suggests less money changed hands than does in the purchase of an AutoCad license...and we are talking about banking. Or to put it another way, Hutchins' resume seems like it might make him an attractive candidate to some firms in the security industry. That also makes Hutchins attractive to the intelligence communities. And though UK prisons are surely unpleasant, the US Federal system almost certainly can offer much less attractive options to incentivize cooperation.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Threatening someone with criminal prosecution is a great way to get them to flip on their friends. Threatening someone with criminal prosecution is an incredibly shitty way to recruit them for security work. (But does play up to the ego of engineers. Multiple government agencies are willing to organize and carry out a massive conspiracy because they want the skills of someone like me!) Also worth noting that no diplomatic goodwill is burned when you arrest and try a foreign national of a crime they committed against your citizens - when your actions qualify as a crime in both countries. If I rob an American, I don't get an out of-jail free card just because I'm a Canadian in the US. Likewise, my government won't even issue a squeak of protest.

You think the UK government would intervene to stop the trial of someone accused of operating a conspiracy to spread banking trojans? Why?

hacker_9 9y ago
Because he's not just a 'someone', he's a hero for stopping the disgusting attack on the NHS and letting doctors and nurses get on with their job of saving lives.
- tptacek 9y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. It's not how justice works. You can't do one useful thing to excuse a series of grave crimes.
  - hacker_9 9y ago
    Ok, so where is the arrests and trials for the people from the NSA, who designed the exploit that was stolen and became a key part of the WannaCry virus? The very same exploit that was used in a bunch of other viruses too, which has stolen tens of thousands of dollars to date?
  - shubb 9y ago
    Occasionally it does in the UK. A man who was videoed appealingly for calm during the London riots was let off I believe an assault charge. The magistrate told him something like 'we're even now '. However this was mitigation at sentencing following a trial.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    I know this probably isn't what you meant, but it's actually often the case that doing useful things helps people get over the other things you did, see Francis Drake, any number of founders of post-colonial and early 20th century countries, conquistadors/founding fathers/revolutionaries, etc. In short, justice is what most other influential people deem just, not some universal measure of conduct. Those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden never stood trial, because the victims belonged to the losing side. The "scientists" of Unit 731 never stood trial.[1] Only 13 out of 24 directors of IG Farben were found guilty and all were released early.[2] The church effectively killed hundreds of thousands (very conservative guess) by telling people not to use condoms. No one was tried. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Surrender_and_immunit... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#IG_Farben_Trial
- user5994461 9y ago
  And he was so effective at stopping the malware because he is himself a malware creator distributing competing malware.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Which we will find out if he gets a fair trial, but that doesn't mean he should be able to skip the trial because he helped the NHS.
      - vkou 9y ago
        No, he should skip the trial because of the chilling effect prosecuting a security researcher who allegedly wrote a banking trojan would have on legitimate security researchers.
        tptacek 9y ago
        What chilling effect would that be? I'm a security researcher, many of my friends are security researchers, none of us sell banking trojans (or write them; they're extremely boring as computer science projects) and none of us have changed what we're working on even a little bit as a result of this case. Frankly, this sounds a lot like what people said during the advent of the Hans Reiser trial. Believe it or not, "security researchers" are just as capable of committing crimes as everyone else is.
        tylersmith 9y ago
        The trial is necessary before you can deem him a legitimate security researcher and trojan authors should feel a chilling effect.
        cortesoft 9y ago
        What? So if I am a security researcher, I am allowed to write and sell as much malware as I want, with no consequences? That is absurd.
- corford 9y ago
  Hero is a bit strong. He rashly decided to register a domain name without knowing how the malware would respond to that. By luck it de-activated itself when the domain became active. The malware could just as easily have decided to encrypt the victim's hdd and destroy the key.
brudgers 9y ago
In the US prosecutorial system, conspiracy charges are regularly used as a tool to leverage and encourage plea negotiations because conspiracy is so broad and allows for broad interpretations of seemingly innocuous actions and trifling intents. As I've said elsewhere, this smells more like an intelligence operation than a criminal investigation. Reading through the indictment [1], the conspiracy charge does not allege anything that isn't in the other charges. For the most part, the other charges allege "knowledge" that the software can be used for some purpose rather than actual use. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/986606/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/986606/downlo...
- tptacek 9y ago
  I'm using "conspiracy" in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense. Obviously, he's charged with more than simply being a member of a conspiracy. I don't know what you think the prosecution of an actual banking trojan operation would look like and so can't evaluate the implication of something seeming "more like an intelligence operation than a criminal operation". Maybe you could clarify. This isn't the first malware conspiracy case the DOJ has gone after.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    From the bail hearing: Prosecutors told a Las Vegas court on Friday that Mr Hutchins had been caught in a sting operation when undercover officers bought the code. They claimed the software was sold for $2,000 in digital currency in June 2015. [1] So he was caught in a sting involving beer money at age 21. As the parent of a young man who recently managed to puncture a hole in the gas tank of a Buick without a clear explanation, my general take is that like many if not most young men, Hutchins has done one or more stupid things prior to the full onset of adulthood (not to suggest that the full onset of adulthood is necessarily entirely effective). Hutchins could have been arrested any time between June of 2015 and August of 2017. This includes: 1. Arrest in the UK. However, this would have required extradition and the expenditure of diplomatic capital given the relatively insubstantial ill gotten gains Hutchins is alleged to have received. The quid pro quo for $2000 in potentially illicit sales would expose a lot of very average people for a lot of very trifling offenses on both sides of the Atlantic. 2. Arrest when Hutchins first entered the US in association with Defcon. He could have been picked up at the airport upon arrival. Arrest in the US at the first opportunity seems the ordinary first alternative to extradition. 3. Arrest while Defcon was going on. Prosecutors argued at the bail hearing the Hutchins was a flight risk. Yet he was allowed to get all the way to the gate for his flight before he was detained. Ok, extradition is a mess. But picking him up earliest opportunity is pretty standard. Waiting until he is about to board a flight suggests either ineptitude or surveillance or the grand jury passing down an indictment during Defcon. I don't really buy ineptitude due to it requiring multiple Federal agencies falling down in routine police work. In a surveillance scenario, publicly arresting Hutchins puts any and all other targets of surveillance on notice. Without other arrests, that seems rather inept policing. Late execution of the warrant suggests a high level agenda to prevent him from being arrested (or questioned) in the UK or detained at the port of entry in the normal manner. Another possibility is the grand jury did not issue a indictment until just prior to Hutchins arrest. This points to a high level agenda as well since presenting evidence to the grand jury between the time Hutchins arrived and attempted to depart would involve significant logistical effort...on a two year old sting operation. To the degree that Hutchins is an attractive intelligence asset, a high level agenda is not implausible. Digging up a skeleton from his closet is not extraordinary spycraft. Letting him get to the airport before the arrest catches him at his most vulnerable and the transition from vacationing Los Vegas luxury to a concrete and stainless Clarke County jail cell is not going to strengthen most people's will. Of course, I am just speculating. But the fundamental premise is that the people of the state level intelligence communities tend to be professionals and good at what they do. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40833951 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40833951
syshum 9y ago
Because he is a UK citizen, and the US Legal system corrupt, twisted and self aggrandizing.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I'd say the UK legal system (well, the legislation) isn't in great condition either. Currently you can be imprisoned for possessing certain pornographic drawings of fictional characters in England, Wales and NI. The Republic of Ireland has similar silly laws, such as how one can be convicted of possessing child pornography if the actors/acresses in the pornography are made to look as though they are underage (e.g through roleplaying or makeup).
PrimHelios 9y ago
Because that indictment was bare-bones and bullshit. I may be wrong here (and part of me hopes that I am), but this entire thing smells like the US flexing its power. Marcus gets picked up by the Feds, disappears without anybody knowing where he is for several days, and then suddenly we get an indictment with almost nothing in it claiming he wrote and sold Khronos based on some IRC logs? That just smells fishy to me.

zwerdlds 9y ago

The question of whether he is guilty of this particular crime is what this particular trial is about. Concessions regarding past behavior are usually saved for the sentencing portion of the trial.

balls187 9y ago

I would guess the UK government is going to work with US officials to ensure he has a fair trial. Not everyone in the US gets that luxury, but given the strong relationship between our two nations, I feel reasonably confident that Mr. Hutchins will receive as fair of a trial as anyone.

brudgers 9y ago

It would not surprise me if the UK government was using the US justice system as a tool to align Mr. Hutchins' interests more closely with those of its security and intelligence organs. To me, the story has unfolded smelling of a human asset acquisition operation. The Anglo-US intelligence communities have a young talented individual on a spit over a slow fire. Odds are, he will be easy to turn. The UK isn't expending political capital on extracting him from his predicament. That doesn't mean that its functionaries don't care. It suggests that what they care about is providing Hutchins with future opportunities to serve the state.

tptacek 9y ago
Or, maybe the guy was just involved, perhaps peripherally and by accident or perhaps directly and culpably, in a banking trojan scheme.
- brudgers 9y ago
  Supposing that everything in the indictment is in fact true, the amounts of money involved relative to the bank robbery industry suggest that Hutchins is not a big time criminal in proportion to the publicity surrounding the case. The upside of going after Hutchins has to be worth the political cost of arresting someone considered a hero by many. And his abandonment by the UK government has to be worth it as well. The indictment suggests less money changed hands than does in the purchase of an AutoCad license...and we are talking about banking. Or to put it another way, Hutchins' resume seems like it might make him an attractive candidate to some firms in the security industry. That also makes Hutchins attractive to the intelligence communities. And though UK prisons are surely unpleasant, the US Federal system almost certainly can offer much less attractive options to incentivize cooperation.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Threatening someone with criminal prosecution is a great way to get them to flip on their friends. Threatening someone with criminal prosecution is an incredibly shitty way to recruit them for security work. (But does play up to the ego of engineers. Multiple government agencies are willing to organize and carry out a massive conspiracy because they want the skills of someone like me!) Also worth noting that no diplomatic goodwill is burned when you arrest and try a foreign national of a crime they committed against your citizens - when your actions qualify as a crime in both countries. If I rob an American, I don't get an out of-jail free card just because I'm a Canadian in the US. Likewise, my government won't even issue a squeak of protest.